save you for being here. that is it tonight. thank you for being with us. good night from new york. >> still think we are over this terrorist thing? a snapshot that proves we can snap at anytime or at any movement and fitch week to set appeared on the associated press with the a tower -- terror attack that left the president injured. it was false and wrong and the president is fine but it quickly torpedoed a market rally. within seconds the surge was completely wiped out of momentary rushed touche treasury's. but the market did rebound after proven false and after finishing up the day better
than 150 points but psychotherapist says if this whole incident does not prove we are tear anxious the machine doesn't know what does. you are right about that. to see if flash like that, across our ticker we get sicker? >> in society -- anxiety is the most common mental illness. with all of these tragedies we have become reactive reactive, impulsive with anxiety. we're like a beaker walking around full the moment something happens the bubble is over. >> not with the traditional media route 18 in viet twitter that someone picked up on the associated press. receive discounted by the associated press itself but the damages done very
quickly which leads me to believe we're all on tenterhooks? >> agreed to and no what is true in the one negative we're very reactive. we think all my gosh. remembered the bubble metaphor? we're walking on eggshells. i am concerned about the mental illness of america. >> traders by and large last week there were plenty of other reasons to be down at the time not great to earnings and not great economic news or a leading index -- economic indicators with there was enough data to justify selling venue have the boston development which punctuated it but did not dominate. the market sustained more serious losses because they looked at it like an isolated incident to the brothers even now.
but what if there is something bigger those that were saying when will go nuts? >> those of the pre-existing condition could even respond in a larger wave than normal the way that 18 percent has anxiety but i think it is more. you react when it comes to what you purchase with stocks people have the emotional attachment. if you think or expect something will happen you expect safety and not the bomb and the stock will rise , expectations makes us feel unstable and out of control and act in the a emotional manner. >> who knows better than
wall street trader second takeover? especially in this case based on nothing more than a tweet. >> what you see with aguirre stock exchange floor was a visualization of the reality of the stock market, equity market, bond market and a mercenary it had nothing to do with the human fere. it is a reaction to a tweet the algorism make based trading. of the machine read the negative headline and not only did the markets come off but the buyers backed out out of fear. i was on the trading floor in 1993 when the world trade center was bombed and also 9/11. there are different human reactions. the one would be to remove yourself. the stock was in a mercenary
fashioned in a downdraft that was dramatic but it was only 135 points. sean: there is something efficient about that but i want to rescue when you talk about algorithms it reminds me of the imaging technology that we have this ability to quickly pounced on the tiniest minutia it would be easy to hoodwink the machines? >> absolutely. every major media broadcast system has the ability to broadcast electronically through the of resnick a problem it is reading to do 50,000 words per second and reacting with the trading reaction to buy or sell based on that information far faster than any human being. what you see on the charge is a brilliant demonstration of what happens because the
buyers in the market based on the standard market disappear so the buyers on the floor, the designated market-makers stood there in the way down there with the only buyers in the market. neil: might they look at this like the flash crash and say get me the hell out? >> unfortunately yes. but what i would say to the investor they should buy stocks when they go down not when they go up. to have the order to buy stock in the marketplace that below the market you did very well because you bought it when people panicked. when an you have the wherewithal to stand there
there, the level is $2 for show a share, you can keep your head. >> you sound called. by now you know all the numbers as apple can mount -- came out not too bad and revenues north of 38 billion that is staggering debt those nummers a tad better than expected. so the company beat the reaper then announced a $50 billion share buyback to raise dividends and we're off to the races to say things are getting better and of might be true but for many that set the stage for apple is losing some of
coulee fact. reading my "wall street journal" and what i show you here, hello. how're you? i show the multi page spread not the answer to but the front section? we'll tell this goes on. the cool thing is that this phone does to combine photos , get your friends together on one mutual chat and hook up to your tv, they can go to various angles and make your breakfast. this is cool and all the buzz and all the rage. this used to be apple. i am to be a -- chilling new multi page spreads, like this full disclosure i am an apple shareholder i and in deep whenever.
we have the editor in chief of the tech site being out cool? immigrate timing right to? >> samsung is pouring money into marketing. creating brand new products and marketing. so they have more than one product. neil: i know that you teach don't buy everything you see in the ad but some say that is just apple. >> the samsung galaxy s4 is a high-performance excellent phone we are excited out and we will test it out to see how good it really is but they are building upon success because coming off of the galaxy as three also the note serious -- series
but talk about cool and a sexy samsung has managed to create products that people desire said galaxy tablet bigger than the iphone five that is quite a bit bigger people really like that. it is on a different platform but it doesn't matter they also marketed the heck out of this. neil: you heard the stuff about apple label by back stock and raise dividends into everything we can't i
bamboozled me we have the latest die pad with rhett display. i don't even understand what that means but i had to get it. then i feel like i have been used. , this is not revolutionary developments and i feel i have been hosed. >> apple set themselves up because they have done revolutionary things and they really invented without apple you would have uphold the eye patch generation in music player generation you and have the samsung galaxy is people don't know. >> would you buy them at these levels? >> i am not allowed. neil: even with a 45%? >> everything i know about apple says i would still bet on apple because they have more up their sleeves but it looked at the ipad ninny
it was in there with a lot of competition and they sold 19 million? neil: did make as much money as the other but the big chunk is the small one is the sexiest of all of the midsize tablets don't bet against apple but i am also anxious for the next act. neil: is that the rest watch? >> or the tv. >> i have written about what about watches. >> i am not a fan of the watch. neil: you are a genius. the canada terrorist suspects appearing in court refusing to enter a plea they are accused of trying to blow up the train with the help of the al qaeda. but the plot was foiled the boston was not. so many threats, so much debt and ron paul how we can
until there is a true economic crisis and i don't think we had in 2008 or 2009 is not much it will get worse because we have not lived in times like this with the whole world inflating the currency and nobody is living within their means. neil: if you think about it if in doubt spend more just like the of bush years the allies are at risk. just like the of privacy invasions like your son last night with rand paul are justified because we may get killed because one is the harm if they poke into the female's? you have to draw the line
somewhere. >> i do because we should not build up to a fear. one side says we cannot cut a penny from the military. trouble. other side, saying you have to have a safety net for everyone, they compromise, they complain so often we don't have enough compromise in washington. but i think there is plenty, it was not so bad when we were growing and wealthy, we're not as wealthy as we used to be, we're a debtor nation, and not producing as much. the compromise is continue to spending which is wrong thing to do. they should come together and say, well maybe we don't need to be policemen of the world, maybe we don't have to have food stamps for 48 million people, maybe we have to -- >> i tell you, you raise a lot
of brilliant points, here is my fear, if we are bitching, pardon my french, the way we are now with the lines at airports and creating rage it is right now. and enough, no mass, maybe we have to delay layoffs, we will never address a fraction of the issues you are talking about. >> that is my working assumption, the next question, why do you try to change people's mind. it is important, we will have a crisis, i have encouraged -- i am encouraged because i talk to a lot of young people, they know it is coming for that reason a lot of people assuming there will be no easy way out, we'll not get enough members of congress, all of a sudden vote against military industrial complex and domestic welfare, that is well entrenched.
conservatives, saying if you don't build the f-35 that hurts jobs. >> your son says to use this type of high technology to go after bad guys is fine, he does not want to used recklessly on individuals, he seemed to draw the line to degree you could track down bad guys, and we have that technology, i think i got the gest of what he said, have at it. >> it was never meant to have a gigantic police force from federal government. we had martial law out there, fbi and these agents coming in closing things down, going to people's houses. no, technology is fine, but it has to be garded. if there is a question, you guard liberty before you say, well, if we catch a bad guy that is good, you don't give up
liberty for 9 people if you might find one person. i would be cautious about that federal government is not supposed to be our police force yet we have over a hundred thousand federal officials to enforce the laws, they own boston, it is criminal that people tolerate this so much, we tolerate this martial law, and total acceptance they come into our house, and we can't get out of the house. what if we want to go to the store, oh, no, you can't! and it was serious, a crisis, 3 team killed. you know we have 48 murders every single day, a lot of murderers out there. do we close down cities because there are 10 murders over the weekend in chicago? we don't do that. but here we close down a whole stay, not even allowed to go a baseball game, very scary with those pictures up in boston.
>> ron paul you make people think, great hearing you. >> all right. fiscal feels for taxpayers, you will not believe who took the money, the same people who gave the money. all of in the interest of saving taxpayer money. when they gave the money? have known someone who's lived well into their 90s. and that's a great thing. but even though we're living longer, one thing that hasn't changed: the official retirement age. ♪ the question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years. ♪
...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it.
why wassermann was not thinking of taxpayers before. and hadley, better late than never? >> yeah, uncle sam, giveeth and take elstaketh away. if you have a government big enough to give you everything you want it is also big enough to take away everything you have. this is just a fraction of the problem. that is $34.5 billions too many. neil: i am happy they are looking out for the taxpayers, they did not start out that way. >> it was $193 million originally. i say only, in principle, supporting clean energy, i get, let's face it we know that climate change, man-made, is going to cause future
generations serious problems. so i do understand why the government is going after this. neil: we can -- man-made climate change. >> according to the -- >> i am not getting into that argument but your point on tax thing. >> fundamentally the government should take lead investigating clean energy, you can't always -- >> you win some you lose some. >> you can't always vist short-term, it is a long-term problem. but execution are not ideal on this one. neil: well, i think that government should -- what do you think? >> i think that government should stay out of businesses, they are encroaching on auto industry, and green industry, and banking industry, we represent small businesses, they want government to stay away from the private sector, let the private sector do its work. neil: but when the businesses are in trouble they like help? >> they would like support and hand out, whether the government should provide it for them, is another thing.
neil: the tough love approach. >> let the free markets work they work all the time. neil: regardless, bottom line is that appetite for this type of spending is not going away, deficits not withstanding, we -- there will be other fiskers or solyndra, bottom line, there is still appetite in the white house to fund more of the grind initiatives hoping to strike oil, no pun. they have not as yet. but, the hope is they will, will they? >> no, this is not a case of execution being off. this is a part of a trend. you could say giving subsidies favoring certain companies over others is picking winners and loser, but the obama white house has a very bad scoreboard of picking mostly losers like. solyndra, that go bankrupt at taxpayer's expect we do not have money or resources for this. we have as there are assistant $17 trillion national debt now is not the time.
neil: how do they do it, if you bet on new technology, does government get behind it. >> we lost everything, we have green taxes, we just tax people. we have seen it before. fundamentally, there does need to be reform in washington, $100 billion a year in corporate welfare, crony capitalism that needs to be looked at money from that should be us used at the gn energy. neil: i we think we should drop all subsidies. >> this green energy stuff is crony capitalism. neil: just, get rid of them all, what do you think? >> neil, we're in middle of that, new tech is a government guaranteed lender, that program is worked for 53 years, this year because of the risk sharing between new tech and government a zero subsidy item. there are times where government, does play an active
and important role. but -- >> that is a lendinga i'm talking about with a government assuming the role of propping up an stray, or providing -- a industry or providing tax break to give an advantage, i think whether it is oil, or solar or anything in between, stop it. >> government should not be in venture capital business. neil: us can be a little bit pregnant. >> well, okay. neil: i don't know where i am going with that. two brothers, authorities rallying around the notion there is no conpair rase -- conspiracy in boston. the judge in the rush to judge. girl vo: i'm pretty conservative.
very logical thinker. (laughs) i'm telling you right now, the girl back at home would absolutely not have taken a zip line in the jungle. (screams) i'm really glad that girl stayed at home. vo: expedia helps 30 million travelers a month find what they're looking for. one traveler at a time. expedia. find yours. gives you 1% cash back on all purchases, plus a 50% annual bonus. and everyone but her... no. no! no. ...likes 50% more cash. but i don't give up easy... do you want 50% more cash? yes! yes?! ♪
neil: now we know that more than 2 years ago they knew the fbi knew that tamerlan tsarnaev, was worth a look and a talk. we also know is that fbi did look and did talk. it just did not have enough on the man who later would be known as suspect number one in boston bombing, to hold him for so much as a single minute in a cell, fbi said because it did not have power or authority. to judge napolitano on federal officials pushing to give the fbi much more. sweeping powers so it can act on its own authority. i always think that maybe
because, have sat by you so long be careful what you wish for. >> absolutely, the fbi's arresting authority is established by the constitution. not a federal statute. congress could not expand this authority even if it wanted to. fbi received indication from russian intelligence that older brother was worth looking at, fbi discounts what it gets, a, they are political, b this guy was chechen, and russians hate chechens, russians spy on us, they are generally not to be trusted, they invest gated him, and they did not hold him, they did not have evidence he committed any crime, fbi arrests people for probable cause of crime that is established in the constitution. anything other requires changing it. neil: these are early charges not documented they missed his
travels back home. >> we don't know. neil: that would be telling. >> we don't know, somebody misspelled his name, maybe he intentionally misspelled it. the airline is not most efficient in the world that he flew it is opened by russian government, he may have used a different name. whatever name he used it was enough to leave the country and return after 6 month absence, he was at the time he left u.s., went to russia and returned to u.s. and at time he committed crimes as a result of which he was killed a lawful residence here. neil: like the strange dude on the street corner who may be harassing you, unless he acted on those threats you cannot do anything until he does something. >> only thing that fbi could have done, if they discovered in those 6 months he was not here, he went to a chechen training
camp where they trained him to establish a cell here. neil: that would be very different. more than a smoking gun. >> they did not have that evidence, they cannot stop us without probable cause of criminal activity. neil: that makes you wonder about how many other characters might be here or popping up on people's radars because they are acting strangely, but you have to connect that and say doing something bad, it sounds like you can't do anything. >> fbi cannot always predict the future, the gross abuse of free will, as a human being, who was lawfully here, decided he hated it hire s here so much he wanteo kill innocent human beings to manifest his hatred. fbi cannot be expected to predict that.
neil: to wish them ill, and to say horrible things that is all protected. >> it is protected speech, so protected that it would not have stopped him from getting a green card. neil: wow, judge thank you very much. >> my pleasure. neil: apple lost its luster, and a hedge fund is making a $2 billion bet on a hot new company. microsoft?
to passing a bill to help states collect sales tax. >> you know it is ironic one area of our economy that is growing great, has you know great innovation, and just really revolutionized things, is one area that government has not touched that is the internet, specifically internet retailing, now they want to get their happeneds into that. it is horrible. the customer is going to get hurt, and damage the small internet retailers, onc once ag, once government starting meddling is goes kaput. neil: you know they all have a advantage that we don't have that our customers may this tax. they don't. and it is an unfair playing field? >> you know here is the bottom line, if a motivated buyer goes on-line to buy something to get a surprise tax, when they press
pay. they -- that may cause them to not baez. thebuy, they have heard earned money, they budgeted. the bottom line is this could seriously hurt the economy but also cause people to second guess do i really need it right now, which is not what the economy needs, there are a couple of unintended consequences. this may cause retailer to raise prices to cover the infrastructure to pay for cost of producing and taking care of the tax bill. neil: that is hard to pass to consumers? >> it it could be, build line - bottom line, if it is a couple bucks here or there it may cause them to go to one store or the other. then is this retailer. neil: -- j.c. penney, shares up 12% after former ceo ron johnson
was ousted, the new boss is giving j.c. penney a second chance. >> we've seen trends in retail, the last ceo leaving bucked the trend too much. consumers wanted sales and products, they were not getting it what this led to was a lack of buyer and brand confident, when consumers go to the store they want to know what they get, and what to expect, when they don't it caused them to worry about, perhaps that company no longer believes in same things i do. if the consumers feel that store hathere back that means increase sales and stock price. neil: you know not first time a unpopular ceo or embattled ceo has left and the stock soars, i don't think we'll see -- it this for last time. >> they will recycle ceos until j.c. penney has gone the
way of woolworths, the problem that derrick said, they had those problems before, that is why the new guy was brought in to do the every day low price walmart thing, but j.c. penney lost its way, why would anyone now go to jc pen over a walmart, a target or if you top anymore upscale, bloomingdale's or macy's, i think that j.c. penney is on the way out? all right, issue 3, everything old is new, microsoft bumped apple off its cool horse. and a new it company, ta da! microsoft, gary? >> i think that question here is, can the big be turned, sometimes it characte. can, normally when you bridge in in -- bring in a new ceo, but you know, a kodak floundered for
years with new and evolving ceos, companies like wang, came and went, i think that microsoft honestly, you know maybe they can take advantage of the cloud thing, although how are they going to make money? i think they are yesterday's news, they will be like ge has when jack welsh left with nothing new and innovative. neil: it is weird how we play these guys like pieces on a chess board. >> you think about the hedge fund, very buffett-like. what it causes is general public and stark tote say, perhap -- stock market to say perhaps we need to give microsoft another chance, perhaps this company does have promise down the road, as a consumer, individual stock buyer, you need to ask, just because someone says this, is it the right stock for your
portfolio. neil: thank you very much full disclosure, i am a apple shareholder and a microsoft shareholder. >> the whole air traffic control layoff thing out of control, republican senator wants to know why all of the delays, if the why all of the delays, if the faa's budget is getting bigger without sequestration. >> thank you oroville and u wilbur, the media, neil and wilbur, the media, neil and buzz. for teaching us that you can't create the future by colleging to the past.stof loo with that, you are history. instead of looking behind. delta is looking beyond. 80,000 of us investing billions.
neil: a republican senator and a democratic senator have the same question for the faa, if our budget is bigger, why are the delays getting longer, they want to know if you cut, why controllers and towers at the top of the list. not ought of the other stuff under -- not all other stuff under. senator, quickly garnering a lot
of support for what he is calls protect our skies act. you want to know, look, we understand the sequestration cuts but we question why these cuts? >> absolutely. no business person would make the choice to cut things that effect their customers the most. why does government make that decision unless there is some motivation to get the consequences to be as dramatic and difficult as possible. neil: they say they have no choice. i don't know who is telling trulgingtruth, i have looked in, they say with these cuts they are almost preordained, these are cuts to some everyone agreed. i don't remember talking to a losalot of your colleagues at te time that sequestration would include automatically air traffic controllers, maybe i missed something? >> absolutely not there was no
conversation, there was no conversation as late as last thursday in the committee that i am on with the administrator of the faa who never said a word about the furl lows -- furloughs that were going to be announced next day, this is nothing that requires obama administration to choose this particular cut even if they were right, concede that point, we tried to give them that authority, full flexibility. neil: i remember that, you said all right, automatic cuts kick in you mr. president will have full discretion on what you cut. >> and president issued a statement indicating a veto threat, i tried to avoid elimination of air traffic control towers with an amendment that transferred from balances, things mostly related to research, i got a hold of secretary of transportation, saying i need your help i cannot
get a vote on this amendment, and the secretary said, i would like to help you but the obama administration opposes your amendment, why is that? neil: you are trying to put a freeze on furloughs for time. two things there are two issues one administration wants to close 140 plus air traffic control tower, which, then sends mores to be places we have control towerings and air traffic controllers, last week, last friday. administration announced furlough of controllers people who work in the towers. and so, we're trying to really affect both things, trying to make certain that the control tower stay in place. but, the sincesning at the moment is ache -- since the thing of the moment is to make sure we don't have furloughs. there why are we furloughing personnel with $2 .7 billion.
neil: some democrats are saying you knew it as coming now you gaifein shock. >> no, we have a reduction in increase of spending, the reductions are manageable. many of us did not vote for sequestration in the first place across the board cuts are not the way to do things as we see by this administration who suggestions they are doing across the buyer cuts. but i tell you that cut to air traffic control towers of a 75% cut, not a 5% sequestration cut, they are picking and choosing, yesterday they claim they have no ability do to do that. >> thank you, senator, we'll track your progress. neil: we know about the one they lit get away. -- let get away, why do not talk about the others they do not let
neil: apparently fully scrubbed they we're done with the radically board rubble from russia through warned the fbi in our midst the authorities let him slip through the? some say it is not that black-and-white it gets a lot of tips just like that for every u.s. attorney general and just like the up would atlantic bomber putting him in jail discussing this with those who want to give more money and more power to pursue this, we have to know the
kind of tips the fbi get. use say quite a bit? they have to sort through quite a bit? what draws there attention? >> they get these tips the fbi will fall even the smallest at. but they take these into investigating. talk to friends and neighbors and individual that appeared happened in this case but the fbi gets thousands of tips like this every year and despite the power that has there are limited resources once they do due diligence if they don't see anything then they closed the file and move on. but all that is entered into a database so they will look at it closely. neil: when you were tracking down rudolph everybody said he would not get him and there you were every day.
it took years but you got him. obviously your bosses say at the time we thank you are a genius we had his name and number fairly quickly the. neil: but just as quickly here, they seem to have quickly concluded, local authorities at this point* that these two brothers acted alone. how do they know that? and do you agree with that? >> at this point* you can determine based on the links coming out whether or not they acted alone or not.
is all appearances and it looks like they may have acted alone. we talked about before in this day and age when of the fears of the country is people will develop tendencies and get on the internet than all the sudden they decide to become full lew wolff -- a lone wolf. neil: when you say acting alone or having visited radical countries or acting alone you say they may not be supporting were financing your efforts the are you really alone? >> i think you are alone in the legal sense that no way you could hold someone accountable for putting videos on new tube. neil: for that alone you cannot catch somebody. so then what was the with rudolf?
>> you did the we had to eyewitnesses' through an act of god were able to identify him on the day of the birmingham bombing and we could get search warrants for his mobile home, a storage shed and once we started seeing what was in the facilities, we could piece together not only birmingham but atlanta that have been two years earlier. up until that point* the folks in atlanta who had done a fabulous job had no idea who eric rudolph was. it took piecing physical evidence together to make the case. neil: there ought to be 100 more like you. not to blow you smoke but thank you very much. crackdown, so many bad guys decades after the fact. talk about boston in those